You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

I know, your post just made me think maybe I cam across as arrogant, particularly in my response to @Thirteenly. It's not that I meant to dispute what feminism means to her so much that I was just splitting hairs. Semantics really, just a trivial nitpick on my part. It just occurred to me after the fact that maybe it came across different than intended.

Not at all but I understand the experience (fuckin Ne).

I should have also made clear that my concern was not for feminists. My focus was on NT desire for accuracy. Their communication style appears to put feminists on the defense...it can look to me when I read over an exchange...almost like it is meant to be taken as purposefully intimidating when in reality it is sincere.

I find most unfortunate that when feminism enabled women to break a lot of the old traditional roles and modes, men were not allowed to similarly break from those and in many cases are still raised feeling some responsibility to outdated conventions such as chivalry/male disposability. My biggest gripe with feminism isn't that it got women more rights and privileges, its that feminists often claim that their ideology will ultimately lead to a similar liberation for males, but I don't see that happening and it seems more a lip service than a real, deep concern or intent on their parts.

This point cannot be overemphasized. To the extent that men remain trapped by traditional roles and expectations, women remain trapped as well. Women and men have always been two interlocking pieces of the human puzzle. Changing the contours of one necessarily requires changing the contours of the other in corresponding ways. That being said, women cannot make men demand and take advantage of freedom from gender roles, and many men do not see that freedom as an advantage, or the things it would allow them to do as attractive. This is not surprising given that men's opportunities have generally been presented as "better" somehow, something an ambitious woman might aspire to. Not so for the reverse.

Originally Posted by Falcarius

Most of the major discrimination women face in the workplace comes down to ridged gender roles in the family home, and the fear employers have about what will happen if or when they become mothers. Half the prejudices against women probably would not happen if childcare and household management was shared between the sexes equally.

You have hit on one of the last frontiers in gender bias, and the one that will take the longest to address - perhaps generations.

Originally Posted by anticlimatic

I'd be more sympathetic to first world feminists if they personally took their values and ideology to places like Africa India Saudi Arabia etc and put their lives on the line defending them, but of course they don't and I have no sympathy or solidarity for selfish hypocritical luke warm 'talk much-do little' wimps.

That would probably go over as well as any other Western attempt to go to such nations and tell them what to do. Reforms in other nations need to be driven by women and men in those nations. We can encourage and help them, but we cannot do it for them. Many American women and men do support efforts to address gender bias overseas, whether by donating to charities/NGOs, supporting relevant domestic legislation regarding foreign aid programs and immigration, or occasionally by working with such groups in-country. Relocating overseas is impractical for most of us, however. There is no shame in staying in the US, meeting one's obligations to family and employer here, and working on the problems that remain right here. The fact that there are some huge "garbage dumps" on the other side of the world does not require us to let lie the litter that has accumulated in our own neighborhood. In fact, if we don't pick it up while being critical of others, it is easy to be dismissed as hypocrites.

Originally Posted by Starry

I should have also made clear that my concern was not for feminists. My focus was on NT desire for accuracy. Their communication style appears to put feminists on the defense...it can look to me when I read over an exchange...almost like it is meant to be taken as purposefully intimidating when in reality it is sincere.

Well, as an INTJ I probably use the same communication style. I am hardly put off by it. Sure, I see sincerity in such comments, plus a great deal of emotion behind them. My reaction when I am reading is often incredulity at how divorced from reality the sentiments are, a reality that is well-documented by both mainstream media, and organizations who study workplace and professional demographics. As an emotional response and an opinion, it is 100% valid, especially from someone whose personal reality has included few if any examples of negative gender bias. I suppose I would expect an NT to give more weight to the evidence, and not assume that his/her personal experience is the norm. I was long ago disabused of that notion.

I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

I'm going to talk about my own experience, which may be different in another countries, cultures, etc. It's also my opinion based on what I see in the present. I voted I see it as a negative thing, but when I mean feminism feels negative to me, I'm talking of what feminist IS now, not wht is supposed to be, not what it used to be, etc.

In fact, everything that follows is an opinion I wrote to someone here a while ago.

And I make this clear, because I've been bombarded with violent subjective comments and links to fallacious articles whose writers’ only ability is a pathetic mix of appeal to pity and ad hominem attacks. I may thank all the women who fought in the past, I’m certainly ashamed of the women in my present. When you’re “fighting” for someone’s “rights” and more than half of the benefitted people are scared/reluctant to join you, it’s because you’re doing something wrong.

I’m giving my own, sincere point of view, not based on books or articles or third-person, second-hand, monomaniacal opinions. Texts with opinions are misinterpreted all the time (consciously or not), and such misinterpretations can be used in very creative and/or malicious ways.

Yes, feminism is about having “the same” rights as men (plus everything related to pregnancy leave, being given the seat in public transport, public breastfeeding, not being looked with lust, escaping first from sinking ships and all the fuzz), but also feminism is about females experiencing their life as females THE WAY THEY WANT. So, if a woman enjoys cooking for her husband (not because old-fashioned grandma told her that’s what women do, but because she really does feel it’s a sincere act of affection), she’s not submissive, neglecting herself or her present and future, etc. She’s just doing what she likes, and if other women don’t understand that, then the whole purpose of “feminism” is completely irrelevant.

The term “feminism” has suffered the same path as the "lovely" swastika. It used to be (and I assume it still must be, for I doubt they’ve scraped it off temples) a symbol of Indian religion(s), also appearing in other cultures, like Greek, until Nazis took over it. And now, liking the old swastika symbol for what it means in Sanskrit is no longer possible (at least in public). If we all called the symbol for its name in Sanskrit to refer to the old meaning and leave the Hakenkreuz concept to refer to nazi symbology, then we’d solve some problems (assuming there were any regarding that topic). Some women have taken over the term in question and it’s time to admit it doesn’t mean what it used to be and those who don’t feel represented by the recycled concept should try to come up with another, in order to avoid confusion. Or not. We could be women who want women in Africa to stop suffering ablations, female co-workers being paid the same as men, and having back up when a crazy man decides to beat up his girl, all of this without giving a crap about the “seriousness” of stand-up comedians talking about their penises, and words ending in “man”, and people referring to general public as “guys”, and actresses refusing to wear corsets (even if it’s historically accurate) because of oppression and blah blah.

I believe there are no synonyms. Very much like in Plato’s Cratylus, which talks about correctness of names, Hermogenes says that it doesn’t matter what name we give a person or object so long as everyone agrees to use it. Taking some words from a philosophy page I read often, “the name does not have to be unique, but its reference does: if there is only one John in the room, the name ‘John’ serves the purpose of distinguishing him from the other people there; if there is more than one John in the room, then something more is needed to identify the one to whom you wish to refer”. In short, a word for every meaning. Following this thought, if we disagree on the meaning of a word, then we either haven’t made the meaning specific enough, or a new concept is missing to differentiate the “opposing” meanings within the definition of the concept. I do believe what “feminism” is supposed to englobe, is not represented by the name (I’m tempted to use Saussure’s terms, but I may mistake them in English and I do not wish to make a fool of myself).

I fail to see the equality when, to “equate” the female situation to that of males we bring them down, accuse them, build prejudice, fear and resentment (we’re death-staring at any regular Joe because Aristotle said women are to men what slaves are to masters. Be mad at Aristotle, not the poor kid. How to close the gap by making it wider? This sort cyclical paradox in which women believe themselves better, want to be equal to men, but they abhor them and think of them as scum, oftentimes makes me laugh.

I fail to understand how we can advocate against violence against gender by enumerating men’s flaws and condemning innocent individuals to start believing they’re trash. How do we add value to the female’s gender by becoming what it’s being judged? Why the double standards? People feel reluctant to give full rights to ex-convicts, based on their actions. Women are acting violently around the world, and half the people are afraid of them. It's not a good strategy to gain rights. Just the opposite.

I fail to understand how on Earth feminists pretend to enhance the gender’s value by portraying themselves as victims (when they’re not portraying themselves as Trojan warriors) instead of highlighting WHY women are as valuable as men. Once I was talking to a feminist, pseudo-communist professor about art, and she felt proud that there was a new room in a gallery that exhibited “underground” artists (people who weren’t famous “because famous artists had fallen prey of capitalist ways of licking boots to get higher”), and I asked why not mixing famous artists with underground artists to show they were all at the same level. She said furiously “then how would people know they’re poor victims of not engaging in the system?”, and I asked “so… you want to exhibit their works because they’re victims or because they have talent?” She turned away and left. This is the kind of behavior that puzzles me. If I’m demanding equal rights, it’s because as a human, I deserve them, because I have value, not because it’s a compensation, not because the one giving me the rights has been an asshole all this time, not because I’m better than others, not because I’m socially handicapped. My vagina doesn't talk. I do it, and I talk intervening for all humans, not just a select group, not just myself.

I fail to understand how double standards seem to have colonized the feminist speech. Even in movies, for decades, angry women have kicked their husbands out of their own bed (because not putting down the toilet’s lid is so ominous that they couldn’t bare sleep next to them) and ordered them to sleep on a highly non-ergonomic couch all night. It’s their bed too. If they did that to women, it would be “another” sign of abuse, dismissal and whatnot. Why is it okay to abort even if the father wants to keep the baby, but it’s not possible for the father to escape from responsibilities? Why most women sound as if they only wanted to be independent to choose who they want to depend from? Is it okay to abhor men but still make them pay for your meal? Aren’t women who are “allergic” to catcalls self-conscious when nobody likes their bodies? Why is it okay to have sex after twenty minutes of knowing a guy, but the other way around is “men treating women as objects”? Why is using them? If you opened your legs, you were using him too. Why is it okay to say you fancy men in suits/tall guys, but men opening the door for you “just want to see your ass”? Let me say two things: first, that’s one of the purposes of an ass; second, if all these feminists’ fathers wouldn’t have had a hard-on while looking at their mothers’ tits, they wouldn’t be on Earth today to make our lives annoying. Women can speak because they are alive, and women alone can’t do that.

I have the luxury of living in a country who approved same-sex marriage in 2010 and waaaay before that, nobody cared if two men walked hand by hand or if two girls were kissing in a park. I live in a city in which you can befriend trannies in the subway. I live in a country with a culture in which men don’t consider taboo talking about their girlfriends’ periods. After our last dictatorship, women who had lost their families gathered around the central square to remembered disappeared people for decades, even now that they’re in their 80s/90s. There's a whole neighbourhood with streets named as women. It even has a bridge designed by a genius like Calatrava. And yet, here these so-called feminists who feel offended by men breathing aren’t a minority. They even give flyers advertising talks on how to become lesbian. It’s madness, and it’s everywhere.

I’m tired.

I’m tired of hysterical, megalomaniac women judging me for how I experience being female.

I’m tired of those women asking me to thank them for the “service”, when, so far, they have only made the gap between men and women wider.

I’m tired of men having to shut their mouths or being afraid of every step they take in case their actions are considered harassing, molesting, oppressing.

I’m tired of women feeling better about themselves by trying to emasculate men.

I’m tired of men being cautious around me “in case I’m one of them”. I’m not. I want them to tell me my dress makes me look fat if it does. I don’t have the right to kick them out of bed if it’s “our” bed in “our bedroom” in “our house”. I don’t mind penis and fart jokes. I don’t care if they’re grossed out by coloured armpit hair. I’m grossed out too. I don’t blame them for liking boobs, as it’s what they’re “programmed” to like. I condemn their violence the same way I condemn a woman slapping a man or making them feel like crap, or giving them orders all the time they must attain or else. We’re all humans. Stop whining.

And that’s about all I have to say. For the moment, being a feminist equals some actions, ways of thinking and interacting with others that I simply can’t stand. This group’s “marketing skills” are hideous. Until they change their ways, I’m not buying their product.

Yes, women's rights, and that leads to equality. There's a difference, but it is almost the same, seriously.

It does in certain areas, whereas in others I've studied up on, feminist organizations work for women's rights in areas where men are disadvantaged either at roughly similar rates or a greater rate. In those instances, it may result in an outcome where an even greater disparity exists than prior, so I find it a hard pill to swallow that it always leads to equality. The two most notable examples that come to mind are international feminist campaigns to lessen sentencing for female convicts (an area where there is already a disparity and women tend to receive far lighter sentences for the same crimes in nations such as the UK and the USA) and feminist campaigns to get more funding and shelters for female domestic abuse victims, when the statistics show that this is a problem affecting both sexes at very similar rates. Nothing wrong with either of these two campaigns, but they're not leading to equality if they ultimately lead to an even greater disparity or inequality of services, et al.

It does work for or lead to equality in areas like, say, trying to get women involved in STEM more, trying to break down bias against them in the workplace, arguing for equal pay between the sexes for the same positions, et al.

I almost didn't want to respond because I am truly not trying to be contentious here or shoot you down. I'm also not trying to attack the fight for women's rights, nor saying feminism shouldn't exist. I'm just contending that it isn't always a movement that works for real equality between the sexes, and that whether it leads to equality depends on which area or inequality feminists are fighting their battles.

Again, I think my argument is more over semantics and definitions than on the merit of women's rights movements. For instance, on the issue of female prisoners, I wasn't saying I thought those campaigns to help them were a bad thing. But if they lead to better treatment for female convicts (and good, I hope it does lead to that) but the same doesn't happen on the male side where men already get harsher senstences and are more likely to be raped and murdered by other prisoners and guards, then not only hasn't equality been reached, but we've created an even greater inequality.

Fact is women on average aren't as interested in STEM. I have one daughter that was. She's doing it. She always kicked ass at math and was good at science. To say I supported her in this regard would be an understatement. She didn't work twice as hard. She had equal opportunity. She was just better. I was good at math and science but never like her. She got a full scholarship to one of the best medical schools in the country. Have another one that went into technology but has never been crazy about it. She did extremely well at it but decided go back and get an MBA at one of the top schools in the country. She did it on her own. That is the way American works. They both worked hard and persevered. That's what it's about. Fuck feminism. It's about passion and work ethic and intentionality. Women need to stop with the excuses. My ancestors where Irish. They were discriminated against a long time ago. Things change and society moves on.

They don't have to work twice as hard. They just have to perform. Women have opportunities same as men.

Edit: I just recalled the one daughter did have an issue with one doctor originating from India who did appear to have some biases against women. She got a bad evaluation for no good reason. She complained and got it fixed. It was bullshit really. That's a situation of importing someone from a sexist culture into the US though.

So. Yes. Gender bias exists. Sorry to disturb your world view. This is the "twice as hard" argument in play. It exists. The ones who excel drive past it or try to at much greater sacrifice and costs to personal life and monetary reward and peer recognition but you also make an assumption that to complain about injustice is to denote you don't press on regardless of it. A giant fallacy.

But...

You're not wrong in many ways. Encouraging for the sake of it, doesn't seem to make much impact in regard to STEM. I agree with this. I'm more interested in how and direct outreach personally. But whatever.

The method of email encouraging didn't affect men either way but it did have differences in females. So maybe, that's what we are trying to figure out.

Fact is women on average aren't as interested in STEM. I have one daughter that was. She's doing it. She always kicked ass at math and was good at science. To say I supported her in this regard would be an understatement. She didn't work twice as hard. She had equal opportunity. She was just better. I was good at math and science but never like her. She got a full scholarship to one of the best medical schools in the country. Have another one that went into technology but has never been crazy about it. She did extremely well at it but decided go back and get an MBA at one of the top schools in the country. She did it on her own. That is the way American works. They both worked hard and persevered. That's what it's about. Fuck feminism. It's about passion and work ethic and intentionality. Women need to stop with the excuses. My ancestors where Irish. They were discriminated against a long time ago. Things change and society moves on.

They don't have to work twice as hard. They just have to perform. Women have opportunities same as men.

Edit: I just recalled the one daughter did have an issue with one doctor originating from India who did appear to have some biases against women. She got a bad evaluation for no good reason. She complained and got it fixed. It was bullshit really. That's a situation of importing someone from a sexist culture into the US though.

So, let's say she enters academia in sciences. What happens when this occurs? How will she defeat unconscious gender bias? If she can't and fails, will you tell her that it's because she didn't work hard enough?

Gender discrimination can be found in the most unexpected fields. An international team, involving Demian Battaglia, a CNRS researcher at the Institut de neurosciences des systèmes, as well as researchers from Yale and the Max Planck Institute (Germany), has just demonstrated that women are underrepresented in the peer review of scientific publications. This research is published in the journal eLife on March 21, 2017.

Gender discriminations are a well-known phenomenon. Scientific research is not immune to these issues, particularly academic publications, one of the cornerstones of scientific work. To be validated, an article must be approved by independent researchers, who are supposed to be selected on the basis of their skills rather than their gender. Yet an international team has found that women scientists—already in a minority in their field—are underselected for peer review. This is due to the natural and unconscious tendency of publishers, most of whom are men, to select a reviewer of their own sex.

I'm going to talk about my own experience, which may be different in another countries, cultures, etc. It's also my opinion based on what I see in the present. I voted I see it as a negative thing, but when I mean feminism feels negative to me, I'm talking of what feminist IS now, not wht is supposed to be, not what it used to be, etc.

In fact, everything that follows is an opinion I wrote to someone here a while ago.

And I make this clear, because I've been bombarded with violent subjective comments and links to fallacious articles whose writers’ only ability is a pathetic mix of appeal to pity and ad hominem attacks. I may thank all the women who fought in the past, I’m certainly ashamed of the women in my present. When you’re “fighting” for someone’s “rights” and more than half of the benefitted people are scared/reluctant to join you, it’s because you’re doing something wrong.

I’m giving my own, sincere point of view, not based on books or articles or third-person, second-hand, monomaniacal opinions. Texts with opinions are misinterpreted all the time (consciously or not), and such misinterpretations can be used in very creative and/or malicious ways.

Yes, feminism is about having “the same” rights as men (plus everything related to pregnancy leave, being given the seat in public transport, public breastfeeding, not being looked with lust, escaping first from sinking ships and all the fuzz), but also feminism is about females experiencing their life as females THE WAY THEY WANT. So, if a woman enjoys cooking for her husband (not because old-fashioned grandma told her that’s what women do, but because she really does feel it’s a sincere act of affection), she’s not submissive, neglecting herself or her present and future, etc. She’s just doing what she likes, and if other women don’t understand that, then the whole purpose of “feminism” is completely irrelevant.

The term “feminism” has suffered the same path as the "lovely" swastika. It used to be (and I assume it still must be, for I doubt they’ve scraped it off temples) a symbol of Indian religion(s), also appearing in other cultures, like Greek, until Nazis took over it. And now, liking the old swastika symbol for what it means in Sanskrit is no longer possible (at least in public). If we all called the symbol for its name in Sanskrit to refer to the old meaning and leave the Hakenkreuz concept to refer to nazi symbology, then we’d solve some problems (assuming there were any regarding that topic). Some women have taken over the term in question and it’s time to admit it doesn’t mean what it used to be and those who don’t feel represented by the recycled concept should try to come up with another, in order to avoid confusion. Or not. We could be women who want women in Africa to stop suffering ablations, female co-workers being paid the same as men, and having back up when a crazy man decides to beat up his girl, all of this without giving a crap about the “seriousness” of stand-up comedians talking about their penises, and words ending in “man”, and people referring to general public as “guys”, and actresses refusing to wear corsets (even if it’s historically accurate) because of oppression and blah blah.

I believe there are no synonyms. Very much like in Plato’s Cratylus, which talks about correctness of names, Hermogenes says that it doesn’t matter what name we give a person or object so long as everyone agrees to use it. Taking some words from a philosophy page I read often, “the name does not have to be unique, but its reference does: if there is only one John in the room, the name ‘John’ serves the purpose of distinguishing him from the other people there; if there is more than one John in the room, then something more is needed to identify the one to whom you wish to refer”. In short, a word for every meaning. Following this thought, if we disagree on the meaning of a word, then we either haven’t made the meaning specific enough, or a new concept is missing to differentiate the “opposing” meanings within the definition of the concept. I do believe what “feminism” is supposed to englobe, is not represented by the name (I’m tempted to use Saussure’s terms, but I may mistake them in English and I do not wish to make a fool of myself).

I fail to see the equality when, to “equate” the female situation to that of males we bring them down, accuse them, build prejudice, fear and resentment (we’re death-staring at any regular Joe because Aristotle said women are to men what slaves are to masters. Be mad at Aristotle, not the poor kid. How to close the gap by making it wider? This sort cyclical paradox in which women believe themselves better, want to be equal to men, but they abhor them and think of them as scum, oftentimes makes me laugh.

I fail to understand how we can advocate against violence against gender by enumerating men’s flaws and condemning innocent individuals to start believing they’re trash. How do we add value to the female’s gender by becoming what it’s being judged? Why the double standards? People feel reluctant to give full rights to ex-convicts, based on their actions. Women are acting violently around the world, and half the people are afraid of them. It's not a good strategy to gain rights. Just the opposite.

I fail to understand how on Earth feminists pretend to enhance the gender’s value by portraying themselves as victims (when they’re not portraying themselves as Trojan warriors) instead of highlighting WHY women are as valuable as men. Once I was talking to a feminist, pseudo-communist professor about art, and she felt proud that there was a new room in a gallery that exhibited “underground” artists (people who weren’t famous “because famous artists had fallen prey of capitalist ways of licking boots to get higher”), and I asked why not mixing famous artists with underground artists to show they were all at the same level. She said furiously “then how would people know they’re poor victims of not engaging in the system?”, and I asked “so… you want to exhibit their works because they’re victims or because they have talent?” She turned away and left. This is the kind of behavior that puzzles me. If I’m demanding equal rights, it’s because as a human, I deserve them, because I have value, not because it’s a compensation, not because the one giving me the rights has been an asshole all this time, not because I’m better than others, not because I’m socially handicapped. My vagina doesn't talk. I do it, and I talk intervening for all humans, not just a select group, not just myself.

I fail to understand how double standards seem to have colonized the feminist speech. Even in movies, for decades, angry women have kicked their husbands out of their own bed (because not putting down the toilet’s lid is so ominous that they couldn’t bare sleep next to them) and ordered them to sleep on a highly non-ergonomic couch all night. It’s their bed too. If they did that to women, it would be “another” sign of abuse, dismissal and whatnot. Why is it okay to abort even if the father wants to keep the baby, but it’s not possible for the father to escape from responsibilities? Why most women sound as if they only wanted to be independent to choose who they want to depend from? Is it okay to abhor men but still make them pay for your meal? Aren’t women who are “allergic” to catcalls self-conscious when nobody likes their bodies? Why is it okay to have sex after twenty minutes of knowing a guy, but the other way around is “men treating women as objects”? Why is using them? If you opened your legs, you were using him too. Why is it okay to say you fancy men in suits/tall guys, but men opening the door for you “just want to see your ass”? Let me say two things: first, that’s one of the purposes of an ass; second, if all these feminists’ fathers wouldn’t have had a hard-on while looking at their mothers’ tits, they wouldn’t be on Earth today to make our lives annoying. Women can speak because they are alive, and women alone can’t do that.

I have the luxury of living in a country who approved same-sex marriage in 2010 and waaaay before that, nobody cared if two men walked hand by hand or if two girls were kissing in a park. I live in a city in which you can befriend trannies in the subway. I live in a country with a culture in which men don’t consider taboo talking about their girlfriends’ periods. After our last dictatorship, women who had lost their families gathered around the central square to remembered disappeared people for decades, even now that they’re in their 80s/90s. There's a whole neighbourhood with streets named as women. It even has a bridge designed by a genius like Calatrava. And yet, here these so-called feminists who feel offended by men breathing aren’t a minority. They even give flyers advertising talks on how to become lesbian. It’s madness, and it’s everywhere.

I’m tired.

I’m tired of hysterical, megalomaniac women judging me for how I experience being female.

I’m tired of those women asking me to thank them for the “service”, when, so far, they have only made the gap between men and women wider.

I’m tired of men having to shut their mouths or being afraid of every step they take in case their actions are considered harassing, molesting, oppressing.

I’m tired of women feeling better about themselves by trying to emasculate men.

I’m tired of men being cautious around me “in case I’m one of them”. I’m not. I want them to tell me my dress makes me look fat if it does. I don’t have the right to kick them out of bed if it’s “our” bed in “our bedroom” in “our house”. I don’t mind penis and fart jokes. I don’t care if they’re grossed out by coloured armpit hair. I’m grossed out too. I don’t blame them for liking boobs, as it’s what they’re “programmed” to like. I condemn their violence the same way I condemn a woman slapping a man or making them feel like crap, or giving them orders all the time they must attain or else. We’re all humans. Stop whining.

And that’s about all I have to say. For the moment, being a feminist equals some actions, ways of thinking and interacting with others that I simply can’t stand. This group’s “marketing skills” are hideous. Until they change their ways, I’m not buying their product.

This is one of the main reasons why I ask men to man the fuck up and live their manhood and code of honor as opposed to what this maelstrom of ludicrous SJW agenda is prompting them to do.

Indeed, the symbol-minded thrive in ignominious confusion endorsing alienation from moral rectitude and freedom by delving in insidious political correctness drama. "Let people be and mind your own damn business" is apparently a very herculian task.

Of course, you will meet wretchminded gender biased men who will question your position just because you're a woman, but that's his personal problem. He's just a shit person.

Frankly, when asked about Feminism, I say, Feminism didn't have any -ism at the beginning. It used to mean preserving women's dignity, a movement to address specific problems of women at a certain era to revive the augustness once again of that person who bore you nine month in her womb. Until, it started being a cancerous world-wide revolt where frustration engulfs the populace by vapid Muh Rights shouts, and egotistical MUH SUFFERING attention-whorism, as if they are the only ones who ever suffered in the history of mankind.

-"So, what happened to you for starting this riot?"
-"Muh husband hit me. I dumped him and got divorce and no man want to touch dis pussy. MEN ARE PIGS! I'M NOT FAT! I'M BONNY! YOU JUST CAN'T HANDLE ME! I LOOK LIKE A MOVIE STAR!!!!"
-"Yeah, you do. Godzilla."

It does in certain areas, whereas in others I've studied up on, feminist organizations work for women's rights in areas where men are disadvantaged either at roughly similar rates or a greater rate. In those instances, it may result in an outcome where an even greater disparity exists than prior, so I find it a hard pill to swallow that it always leads to equality. The two most notable examples that come to mind are international feminist campaigns to lessen sentencing for female convicts (an area where there is already a disparity and women tend to receive far lighter sentences for the same crimes in nations such as the UK and the USA) and feminist campaigns to get more funding and shelters for female domestic abuse victims, when the statistics show that this is a problem affecting both sexes at very similar rates. Nothing wrong with either of these two campaigns, but they're not leading to equality if they ultimately lead to an even greater disparity or inequality of services, et al.

It does work for or lead to equality in areas like, say, trying to get women involved in STEM more, trying to break down bias against them in the workplace, arguing for equal pay between the sexes for the same positions, et al.

I almost didn't want to respond because I am truly not trying to be contentious here or shoot you down. I'm also not trying to attack the fight for women's rights, nor saying feminism shouldn't exist. I'm just contending that it isn't always a movement that works for real equality between the sexes, and that whether it leads to equality depends on which area or inequality feminists are fighting their battles.

Again, I think my argument is more over semantics and definitions than on the merit of women's rights movements. For instance, on the issue of female prisoners, I wasn't saying I thought those campaigns to help them were a bad thing. But if they lead to better treatment for female convicts (and good, I hope it does lead to that) but the same doesn't happen on the male side where men already get harsher senstences and are more likely to be raped and murdered by other prisoners and guards, then not only hasn't equality been reached, but we've created an even greater inequality.

I can agree with everything you're saying. TBH, I'm generalizing in my replies -- I'm basically speaking up on the subject of Feminism (as we all are here), but I do recognize toxic feminism and it comes in many ways. Personally, I'm still learning about this stuff myself, too. I apologize if I came off as defensive, I naturally get like that and when I saw some of my responses, I felt like I was being trolled, which is annoying after I was trying to contribute to a discussion.

I can agree with everything you're saying. TBH, I'm generalizing in my replies -- I'm basically speaking up on the subject of Feminism (as we all are here), but I do recognize toxic feminism and it comes in many ways. Personally, I'm still learning about this stuff myself, too. I apologize if I came off as defensive, I naturally get like that and when I saw some of my responses, I felt like I was being trolled, which is annoying after I was trying to contribute to a discussion.